Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Singapore Kopitiam watch

Announcements
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Alright nobody here then. LOL! Try fb haha
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    This threadd is dying.. *attempts to resuscitate by performing CPR*
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    who would be here? Easter holidays in UK now!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nl1991)
    How prestigious is an llb at king's? Would a king's law graduate be preferred over an nus law grad! and is it worth going to king's? i got rejected by lse and ucl which were pretty much my top choices
    No one in the Singapore legal industry cares where you are from (as long as it's recognised). The legal industry is so small and insulated that prestige counts for very little. In other words, a KCL LLB graduate wouldn't be preferred over an NUS LLB graduate and vice versa. Obviously, you may not have the 'connections' if you aren't from NUS, but whether that matters is entirely up to you.

    Whether it's worth it or not depends on your priorities, though if you want to work in the City rather than return to Singapore, it's obviously going to be better to start here. The job market for Magic Circle recruiting has been pretty shabby the past two years, but by the time you graduate, they should be hiring again, and KCL has a great reputation for law in the UK.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    hey guys im headed to UCL september 2010 for electrical electronic engineering. Any other freshies from singapore headed over there? I have yet to fill up my accomodation form and im looking for a possible roomie for twin sharing. Cheers!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jspuz)
    No one in the Singapore legal industry cares where you are from (as long as it's recognised). The legal industry is so small and insulated that prestige counts for very little. In other words, a KCL LLB graduate wouldn't be preferred over an NUS LLB graduate and vice versa. Obviously, you may not have the 'connections' if you aren't from NUS, but whether that matters is entirely up to you.

    Whether it's worth it or not depends on your priorities, though if you want to work in the City rather than return to Singapore, it's obviously going to be better to start here. The job market for Magic Circle recruiting has been pretty shabby the past two years, but by the time you graduate, they should be hiring again, and KCL has a great reputation for law in the UK.
    well, you can say that. but there's a reason why there's a bigger proportion of graduates from the london unis, bristol, nottingham, as compared to the rest [Soton, manchestre, leeds etc] in the Big 4. i do agree that how far u go depends on your own efforts rather than a piece of paper with a certain institution name on it

    the legal industry however is no longer so insulated with the gradual liberalisation of the sector. we have more schools being recognised, and more foreign firms are given license to practice here. in time one can only expect foreign lawyers to be able to argue in the courts here.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yonanz)
    well, you can say that. but there's a reason why there's a bigger proportion of graduates from the london unis, bristol, nottingham, as compared to the rest [Soton, manchestre, leeds etc] in the Big 4. i do agree that how far u go depends on your own efforts rather than a piece of paper with a certain institution name on it

    the legal industry however is no longer so insulated with the gradual liberalisation of the sector. we have more schools being recognised, and more foreign firms are given license to practice here. in time one can only expect foreign lawyers to be able to argue in the courts here.
    Don't you think that's also because a larger proportion of Singaporeans (who successfully get a second upper) would rather go to so called brand name universities? It's not difficult to get a pupillage (or if you like, training contract now) at the Big Four anyway so the "percentage" doesn't say very much; if anything, I bet University of Manchester is better known than University of Bristol. Why? Because of Man U.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jspuz)
    Don't you think that's also because a larger proportion of Singaporeans (who successfully get a second upper) would rather go to so called brand name universities? It's not difficult to get a pupillage (or if you like, training contract now) at the Big Four anyway so the "percentage" doesn't say very much; if anything, I bet University of Manchester is better known than University of Bristol. Why? Because of Man U.
    Hmmm, but just because a larger proportion of Singaporeans would rather go to so called "brand name" universities doesnt mean a larger proportion of Singaporeans successfully get into so called brand name universities. So just because there are a larger no of lawyers from certain unis cannot be automatically attributed to the fact that a large number of SIngaporeans go to these "brand" unis. On the contrary, a no of graduates from these "brand name" universities might have secured training contracts with magic circle firms in the uk. So there MIGHT be a lesser number coming back to qualify here. There is a certain level of selectivity even in the Unis themselves.

    Im not too sure how difficult it is to get a pupillage at Big Four, though it seems like you do. Have you gone through the application process yourself? And just because Manchester U is better known that Bristol doesnt mean it is better known as a good/better university.

    Also assuming we take your line of argument and Manchester is really better known than Bristol - Yet Manchester seems to have far fewer lawyers in the top 4 compared to Bristol (perhaps you can go do this check for yourself among the big 4... hardly any, if any - though one can only browse thru the profiles of the partners), which u think is not as ... "better known", then there seems to be some incoherency, no? Why isn't there as many lawyers from a better known university like Manchester in the big 4, compared to Bristol?

    Hmmmmm. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Wow I never knew there was a Singaporean thread here :P

    Hello everybody
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by myersfyer)
    Hmmm, but just because a larger proportion of Singaporeans would rather go to so called "brand name" universities doesnt mean a larger proportion of Singaporeans successfully get into so called brand name universities. So just because there are a larger no of lawyers from certain unis cannot be automatically attributed to the fact that a large number of SIngaporeans go to these "brand" unis. On the contrary, a no of graduates from these "brand name" universities might have secured training contracts with magic circle firms in the uk. So there MIGHT be a lesser number coming back to qualify here. There is a certain level of selectivity even in the Unis themselves.

    Im not too sure how difficult it is to get a pupillage at Big Four, though it seems like you do. Have you gone through the application process yourself? And just because Manchester U is better known that Bristol doesnt mean it is better known as a good/better university.

    Also assuming we take your line of argument and Manchester is really better known than Bristol - Yet Manchester seems to have far fewer lawyers in the top 4 compared to Bristol (perhaps you can go do this check for yourself among the big 4... hardly any, if any - though one can only browse thru the profiles of the partners), which u think is not as ... "better known", then there seems to be some incoherency, no? Why isn't there as many lawyers from a better known university like Manchester in the big 4, compared to Bristol?

    Hmmmmm. :rolleyes:
    First, to even have qualified to be a lawyer in Singapore in the past and be hired by a Big Four firm, you had to get a second upper. If you are capable of getting a second upper, chances are, you were probably capable of getting into a good, BLE recognised university based on your A Level results, given that the grades needed to get into these universities do not differ much. If I get the same grades and could choose to go to either Oxford or Oxford Brookes, I would go to Oxford. So my point was simply that of course there are more people from Oxbridge, London Universities etc at Big Four firms, because more Singaporeans capable enough to get hired would have gone there, not because partners discriminate against 'lesser' universities.

    My point of Bristol vs Manchester was based solely on the original question of "prestige" level. Ask the typical Singaporean, or - if you want to continue the point about the legal industry - even the recruiting partner of a firm whether they think there's an appreciable difference between Manchester and Bristol such that ceteris paribus, they would hire a Bristol lawyer over a Manchester lawyer simply because of that. I never said Manchester is a better university, and as it is, I don't know myself because I didn't go to either and I'm wary of rankings.

    As for the partners point, I have gone through the partner profiles and there are more partners from NUS than Oxbridge, ergo, NUS is the better university. Of course not, it also depends on the flow of lawyers. More Singaporeans do law at NUS than Oxbridge; more Singaporeans do law at Bristol than at Manchester. My 'incoherent' logic is a point about quantity, not quality.

    I didn't apply to any of the Big Four firms in Singapore, so perhaps I'm not qualified to say anything about their recruiting processes, but I know plenty of people who did and I've spoken to partners of all four firms, and they all 'say' the same thing to me: if you have a qualified degree and you are good, we will hire you. When I said it's not too difficult, it's a supply and demand issue as well.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jspuz)
    First, to even have qualified to be a lawyer in Singapore in the past and be hired by a Big Four firm, you had to get a second upper. If you are capable of getting a second upper, chances are, you were probably capable of getting into a good, BLE recognised university based on your A Level results, given that the grades needed to get into these universities do not differ much. If I get the same grades and could choose to go to either Oxford or Oxford Brookes, I would go to Oxford. So my point was simply that of course there are more people from Oxbridge, London Universities etc at Big Four firms, because more Singaporeans capable enough to get hired would have gone there, not because partners discriminate against 'lesser' universities.

    My point of Bristol vs Manchester was based solely on the original question of "prestige" level. Ask the typical Singaporean, or - if you want to continue the point about the legal industry - even the recruiting partner of a firm whether they think there's an appreciable difference between Manchester and Bristol such that ceteris paribus, they would hire a Bristol lawyer over a Manchester lawyer simply because of that. I never said Manchester is a better university, and as it is, I don't know myself because I didn't go to either and I'm wary of rankings.

    As for the partners point, I have gone through the partner profiles and there are more partners from NUS than Oxbridge, ergo, NUS is the better university. Of course not, it also depends on the flow of lawyers. More Singaporeans do law at NUS than Oxbridge; more Singaporeans do law at Bristol than at Manchester. My 'incoherent' logic is a point about quantity, not quality.

    I didn't apply to any of the Big Four firms in Singapore, so perhaps I'm not qualified to say anything about their recruiting processes, but I know plenty of people who did and I've spoken to partners of all four firms, and they all 'say' the same thing to me: if you have a qualified degree and you are good, we will hire you. When I said it's not too difficult, it's a supply and demand issue as well.

    If you are capable of getting a second upper, chances are, you were probably capable of getting into a good, BLE recognised university based on your A Level results, given that the grades needed to get into these universities do not differ much.

    So if Im capable of getting a second upper at say... Exeter, can one automatically assume that one can do the same at the likes of UCL or Oxford or LSE? Im not saying its not possible nor am I implying any form of intellectual inferiority. But I dont think it is very correct to automatically use a "if u can get a second upper at university, u confirm could have gotten into a good BLE recognised uni". You're using a reverse form of assumption instead of a "if you can qualify for a gd BLE university, u shld be able to get a second upper", which even I must say, isn't very correct also.

    Ask the typical Singaporean, or - if you want to continue the point about the legal industry - even the recruiting partner of a firm whether they think there's an appreciable difference between Manchester and Bristol such that ceteris paribus, they would hire a Bristol lawyer over a Manchester lawyer simply because of that

    Come on. Do you really expect employers to say, "No no no, we hate that university. Dont go to that one. Go to this one. We only hire from this particular law school"? Of course not. Employers, partners, etc are gonna say... You know what, go wherever you can go, do your best, and ure good, we'll hire you. They say that to EVERY one... in uni internship fairs, at interviews, at those little stands they put up during the legal forums. Im not saying its misleading... but i think that is what they call HR replies.

    I have gone through the partner profiles and there are more partners from NUS than Oxbridge, ergo, NUS is the better university.

    NUS might not be better. But years ago, NUS was the only singapore law school and they had to have a certain quota of Singapore-law trained lawyers from the beginning. And it will be hypocritical and incorrect for them to only hire from the overseas law school since they do have their own law school. Hiring locally is on an entirely different agenda altogether. E.g SMU might not be superior, but theyre definitely not gonna see trouble getting jobs too. As much as SIngapore might want to hire ONLy oxbridge graduates, sadly, she is obliged to hire her own lawyers too. Its a fact.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by myersfyer)

    So if Im capable of getting a second upper at say... Exeter, can one automatically assume that one can do the same at the likes of UCL or Oxford or LSE? Im not saying its not possible nor am I implying any form of intellectual inferiority. But I dont think it is very correct to automatically use a "if u can get a second upper at university, u confirm could have gotten into a good BLE recognised uni". You're using a reverse form of assumption instead of a "if you can qualify for a gd BLE university, u shld be able to get a second upper", which even I must say, isn't very correct also.
    I don't understand what you mean about reverse assumption; pardon my inability to reply this point in this aspect. :o:

    If you were capable of getting a second upper at Exeter, assuming the grade ranges to get in at Exeter were ABB - AAB, yes, I think you are capable of getting into Bristol or KCL. Whether you are capable of getting a second upper at the abovementioned universities, I don't know.

    I don't know if you applied for law in UCAS, because the grade offer ranges (at least in the past) were very narrow. My argument was all along a simple statistical point.

    Fact: More Singaporeans go to Bristol to do law rather than Exeter or Manchester, and more Singaporeans do so because you need the same grades to get in, and I would obviously choose the 'better' university. Therefore, it is not surprising to see more Singaporean lawyers from Bristol than Exeter.

    That was what I was referring to.

    (Original post by myersfyer)

    Come on. Do you really expect employers to say, "No no no, we hate that university. Dont go to that one. Go to this one. We only hire from this particular law school"? Of course not. Employers, partners, etc are gonna say... You know what, go wherever you can go, do your best, and ure good, we'll hire you. They say that to EVERY one... in uni internship fairs, at interviews, at those little stands they put up during the legal forums. Im not saying its misleading... but i think that is what they call HR replies.
    No, I can distinguish between PR replies and a real reply; however, I don't think they were just trying to convince me that I wouldn't be discriminated against either. :p: But the fact is, the original question was: Is there a real difference in prestige level between KCL Law and NUS Law. My answer was no, and remains no. Is there a real difference in prestige level between Manchester and Bristol? I really can't see it, and if I were in recruitment, I wouldn't see it either. Is there a real difference in prestige level between NUS Law and Manchester Met? Yes.



    (Original post by myersfyer)
    NUS might not be better. But years ago, NUS was the only singapore law school and they had to have a certain quota of Singapore-law trained lawyers from the beginning. And it will be hypocritical and incorrect for them to only hire from the overseas law school since they do have their own law school. Hiring locally is on an entirely different agenda altogether. E.g SMU might not be superior, but theyre definitely not gonna see trouble getting jobs too. As much as SIngapore might want to hire ONLy oxbridge graduates, sadly, she is obliged to hire her own lawyers too. Its a fact.
    I don't understand the point of this part, because my "numerical" comparison was merely a reply to the more partners from Bristol point. But as a digression, there's no reason why partners would only want to hire Oxbridge graduates, given that Oxbridge probably produces ten Singapore lawyers a year, half bonded to PSC and the other half happily earning their money slaving in the City of London. Even if they wanted to, there wouldn't be the supply.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Let me throw a spanner in this wheel on law firms in Singapore.
    Psstt. For my info ...Who are the "Big Four" in the legal industry, and what is the impact with lawyer migration. Does the esteemed lawyer make the name or vice versa or maybe the clients.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Masala)
    Let me throw a spanner in this wheel on law firms in Singapore.
    Psstt. For my info ...Who are the "Big Four" in the legal industry, and what is the impact with lawyer migration. Does the esteemed lawyer make the name or vice versa or maybe the clients.
    Yeah, I squinted blanky when I saw 'Big Four', as I only knew that the term existed for the auditing firms i.e. Deloitte, KPMG, PwC, E&Y.

    Still don't understand Masala's question about esteemed lawyers. Most law graduates haven't had much experience to prove their worth, apart from internships and testimonials. Hence, are they deemed to be good based on common sense thingies like grades, university etc and the potential employer's own arbitrary standards? I don't know anything about the law industry - I'm from the arts.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Intense discussion.

    Big four law firms include KhattarWong, Harry Elias, WongPartnership? Im not particularly sure myself either.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    For our interest:

    Mon, Jan 05, 2009: my paper
    SMALL law firms have a big problem: recruiting new blood.
    By Rachel Chan

    The four largest firms here snap up the lion's share of fresh graduates. Many among National University of Singapore's (NUS) law cohort end up at Drew and Napier, WongPartnership, Allen & Gledhill and Rajah & Tann, observed fourth-year NUS student Cannis Seng, 26.

    Now, Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong (right) - noting that 17 lawyers from small firms got into trouble for misconduct last year - wants the Law Society to "enhance the role" of such firms and "make a sustained effort to reduce the incidence of malpractice in such firms".

    Speaking at the opening of the legal year in the Supreme Court last Saturday, he acknowledged that the difficulties faced by these firms "result from having to compete for low-income work with insufficient manpower and other resources".

    Small law firms are run by five lawyers or fewer, and 90 per cent of Singapore's law firms fall into that category.

    When it comes to salary or reputation, they are unable to match the big four. Yet, there are advantages to starting small.

    Small or mid-sized firms offer more hands-on opportunities.

    "Typically, a large firm has more red tape and bureaucracy," third-year student Kwang Shihao, 23, acknowledged.

    One way to draw more new graduates to small firms might be to increase interaction between the two.

    "Big names are often regurgitated at school, but small firms are often unheard of," said Mr David Ng, 42, a general litigator who runs a one-man show at Hameed & Co.

    "The Law Society can try to educate undergraduates by giving talks on the benefits of joining a small firm, and perhaps making it compulsory for them to be attached to small firms in the first two years."

    Mr Peter Low, a former president of the Law Society and the current head of the litigation division of Colin Ng & Partners, said: "It would help if the small firms themselves come up and form the leadership - sit in the Law Society council and help to implement policies geared towards helping small firms."

    Yet, for now, even new lawyers who know their disadvantages still choose the big firms.

    "Nowadays, people are no longer adventurous. They prefer to take the safe route by joining a large firm," said Mr Ng.

    A brand name is also linked to high pay increments and bonuses, he added.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by melsonchun)
    This threadd is dying.. *attempts to resuscitate by performing CPR*
    lol. literally laughed at that.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jspuz)
    I don't understand what you mean about reverse assumption; pardon my inability to reply this point in this aspect. :o:

    If you were capable of getting a second upper at Exeter, assuming the grade ranges to get in at Exeter were ABB - AAB, yes, I think you are capable of getting into Bristol or KCL. Whether you are capable of getting a second upper at the abovementioned universities, I don't know.

    I don't know if you applied for law in UCAS, because the grade offer ranges (at least in the past) were very narrow. My argument was all along a simple statistical point.

    Fact: More Singaporeans go to Bristol to do law rather than Exeter or Manchester, and more Singaporeans do so because you need the same grades to get in, and I would obviously choose the 'better' university. Therefore, it is not surprising to see more Singaporean lawyers from Bristol than Exeter.

    That was what I was referring to.


    No, I can distinguish between PR replies and a real reply; however, I don't think they were just trying to convince me that I wouldn't be discriminated against either. :p: But the fact is, the original question was: Is there a real difference in prestige level between KCL Law and NUS Law. My answer was no, and remains no. Is there a real difference in prestige level between Manchester and Bristol? I really can't see it, and if I were in recruitment, I wouldn't see it either. Is there a real difference in prestige level between NUS Law and Manchester Met? Yes.





    I don't understand the point of this part, because my "numerical" comparison was merely a reply to the more partners from Bristol point. But as a digression, there's no reason why partners would only want to hire Oxbridge graduates, given that Oxbridge probably produces ten Singapore lawyers a year, half bonded to PSC and the other half happily earning their money slaving in the City of London. Even if they wanted to, there wouldn't be the supply.
    Hello. Thanks for actually bothering to reply and helping me out if I got a little out of context. :rolleyes:

    Anyway, for the first point, u said, "Whether you are capable of getting a second upper at the abovementioned universities, I don't know." Yet in your first reply, u said "If you are capable of getting a second upper, chances are, you were probably capable of getting into a good, BLE recognised university based on your A Level results, given that the grades needed to get into these universities do not differ much."

    The crux of this matter is about how u readily assumed in your first post, that if I can get a second upper, (im assuming anywhere since u did not specify from where), you could have gone into any good, BLE recognised university. I think its abit self-indulgent. Firstly, I do not think the entry requirements for Exeter and Bristol would be the same. Secondly, if you look at some websites that specify the % of second upper given to a certain cohort of a particular university, theyre always different. X University may be giving her cohort 88.9% of 2nd uppers, while Y University may be giving hers 60%. Of X University's 88.9%'s 2nd uppers, the mark range within which a 2nd upper is awarded is large. That is why I do not think A 2nd upper anywhere = capable of getting into a gd BLE uni. Take into consideration... minor factors like late bloomers, students who didnt perform to their best because they did subjects at A lvls that did not suit their skills set, and thus they are doing better in Law, etc? Haha. I dont know abt the close A level results requirement u were talking abt, but Im just pretty bugged by the automatic -> 2nd upper honors somewhere = could have gotten into a gd BLE recognised law school.

    For the 2nd part... I think the real question is whether where one does his law degree really matters rite? Putting aside the comparison abt manchester or bristol or nus or kcl, the crux of the matter is really what u said - whether which university one comes from really matter right? As you said, "No one in the Singapore legal industry cares where you are from (as long as it's recognised)." And then, U gave that comparison - "Is there a real difference in prestige level between NUS Law and Manchester Met? Yes" I dont know if u chose Manc Met because it isnt BLE recognised, but ill latch on to your use of 'Prestige level'. And if we take your own words for it - you just made a completely contradictory toss and a valid point, and agreed that Prestige does matter. And consequently, which law school you go to does matter. (though I still think prestige doesnt really matter when ure talking about the local lawschools. I still think SMU students are not gonna have any problems finding jobs.)

    About NUS and Bristol and the Partners thing - Uhm, well your point was - just because there are more partners of a particular university in a firm does not mean an LLB from that particular university is given more consideration because hey! We have so many NUS partners... are you trying to say they are better, more well-regarded?

    And my point is - No. There are more partners from NUS not because NUS is more well-regarded but because Singapore has a certain obligation to hire her own lawyers. on top of which, i do not think many people ventured overseas to do law then. and of those who did, not many came back. As such, many many lawyers here then came from NUS - thanks to the protectionist measures employed then.

    As such Im trying to say, one cannot compare how often NUS LLB graduates appear as partners in a firm as a mark of a firm's regard for NUS because the innate obligation to hire from NUS Law (not that im trying to insinuate any form of intellectual inferiority, and that firms HAVE HAVE to hire them even though they suck) puts NUS out of this "more partners from a certain uni = higher regard" issue because NUS has a totally different consideration to fulfill in the whole demand and supply mechanism for local lawyers. Singapore HAVE to, to a certain extent, hire her own lawyers from her own law school.

    That was it.

    Sorry if my english's below comprehensible standard. It has been a long day for me and Im tired. Thus, I really dont know why Im even replying. But, anyway whatever's mentioned came without any hostile intent. Haha, cheers :p:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I am tired at the sight of the arguments. Indeed, this thread is dead!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cpl.fir)
    I am tired at the sight of the arguments. Indeed, this thread is dead!
    I couldnt get myself to plough thr the entire diatribe at all.:eek3:
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 20, 2016
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources
US study forum

Accommodation profiles:

iQ Student Accommodation

iQ Student Accommodation

Great value student rooms in city centre locations all across the UK


X1 Lettings

X1 Lettings

Luxury student accommodation in Liverpool & Manchester.


Collegiate Accommodation

Collegiate Accommodation

"This is student living. Just better."


Scape Student Living

Study Inn

Providing stunning high quality, boutique student accommodation throughout the UK


The Student Housing Company

The Student Housing Company

Award-winning student accommodation - voted by 22,000 students.

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.